Reported / Citable
Background
Christine and Michael Moore sued Fannie Mae, mortgage servicers, law firms, substitute trustees, and others in Midland County, Texas, asserting wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, fraud, trespass, civil conspiracy, abuse of process, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a Texas constitutional claim. They alleged that defendants lacked authority to foreclose on their Midland property in 2015 and sought substantial damages.
PHH Mortgage Corporation, identified as Ocwen Loan Servicing’s successor by merger, and Fannie Mae removed the case. The Moores moved twice to remand, arguing that federal jurisdiction was absent, the state court lacked a properly assigned judge, not every defendant consented to removal, and removal was untimely.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin recommended denying the Moores’ first remand motion and denying their duplicative second motion as moot. The recommendation concluded that the Texas defendants—three law firms and the substitute trustees—were improperly joined because the petition relied almost entirely on collective, conclusory allegations and did not plausibly connect those defendants to actionable conduct.
Disregarding the improperly joined defendants established complete diversity, and the complaint independently supported federal-question jurisdiction because it expressly asserted a § 1983 claim. The magistrate judge also concluded that the alleged state-court assignment irregularity did not affect removability, all properly joined defendants consented through counsel’s notice of removal, and the notice was timely under the later-served-defendant rule.
Key Takeaways
- A petition that lumps defendants together without defendant-specific factual allegations may support a finding of improper joinder.
- An expressly pleaded § 1983 claim supplies federal-question jurisdiction based on the complaint at removal.
- An earlier-served defendant may join a timely removal filed within a later-served defendant’s 30-day window.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates two independent paths to federal jurisdiction in a foreclosure dispute: diversity after disregarding improperly joined in-state defendants, and a federal claim appearing on the face of the state-court petition. It also underscores that challenges to state-court judge assignments generally do not defeat removal where a civil action was pending and the federal court otherwise has original jurisdiction.